Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall Assessment

The paper is not properly structured (authors should clearly develop a text addressing the Research Methods, the Results and Discussion sections). The paper is not easy to read (is not properly written considering the academic language) but presents useful information to those researchers that address the “Customet loyalty” topic. In addition, all text should be revised by a native English speaker. Please take into account the following suggestions.

 

Along all text

- Please avoid using "our", "We", "Us", etc. The text should be more formal and not so personnal. The focus should be on the study not on the authors. 

- Please make sure that the text is revised by a native english speaker

- Please avoid the adoption of exclamation marks (!).

 

Abstract

- Please consider the following structure (1 sentence each): Introduction, Research Goals, Research Method, Results, Conclusions, Implications.

 

Research Methods

- Authors should put some efforts on describing clearly the reserach methods adopted such as the survey 

 

Results

- Authors mention survey results but the description of the survey as a research technique is absent from the Research Methods section.

- The Results section is confusing and authors should put some efforts on improving the readership of the paper.

 

Discussion

- The Results section is confusing and authors should put some efforts on improving the readership of the paper.

 

Conclusion seem in line with the Results reported.

 

I believe authors should acknowledge the respondent companies.

Author Response

Our responses are included into enclosed file. Thanks for understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper.

In my opinion, the authors should make the following changes:

1. The research gap should be justified much better.This literature will significantly improve the introduction section and facilitate the identification of the research gap:

Domingues, P., Sampaio, P., & Arezes, P. M. (2016). Integrated management systems assessment: a maturity model proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 164-174.

Dellana, S., & Kros, J. (2019). ISO 9001 and supply chain quality in the USA. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.

Zimon, D., Madzik, P., & Sroufe, R. (2020). Management systems and improving supply chain processes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

Fonseca, L., & Domingues, J. P. (2017). ISO 9001: 2015 edition-management, quality and value. International Journal of Quality Research, 1(11), 149-158.

etc.

 

At the moment, I do not see research gap justification based on the gap identified from previous literature. This should definitely be in the introduction.

2. Literature review does not provide a state of the art about the main concepts that are discussed in this paper. The paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field. Authors should analyze the findings and research gaps from previous researchers.

3. Authors should better develop a section with methodology. I am confused about your methodology. Please, develop this section further and be more precise about what you have been doing and how you conducted the research. I propose to prepare and add to the paper a drawing presenting the logical process of the conducted research. Please justify the choice of research companies much better. Please also do a professional literature review.

4. Swap section 2 with 3.

5. In the Discussion section, the obtained results should be confronted with the opinions contained in the literature on the subject and with the results of the other studies, so that it is clear whether the obtained results confirm or question the current state of knowledge.

6. Transfer Lines 500-519 to section 6.

7. Authors should try to explain how the results obtained can serve companys operating in other countries.

Good Luck !

Author Response

Our responses are included into enclosed file. Thanks for understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses an important and actual topic of customer loyalty measurement at closed-loop quality management in B2B area. Undoubtedly, it is an important issue from the point of view of quality management and customer relations.

However, I have many critical comments to the manuscript of an editorial and substantive nature.

Editorial:

Spaces too large - lines: 12, 34, 52, 103, 111, 116, 117, 156, 162, 163, 170, 172, 183, 196, 206, 258, 288, 292, 312, 375, 445, 476, 496, 524, 540, 552, 555

Footnotes should be placed directly after the author, e.g. J.S. Lim [2]

Line 51: a nice foundation - words like "nice" are not used in a scientific article

The personal form is not used in articles - line 50: under our opinion; line 56: we will present; line 64: our; line 73: our; line 74: we; line 84: we; line 89: let us make; line 122: our; line 132: we; line 257: we, our; line 264: we; line 286: we; line 307: we; line 322: let us; line 404: we, line 444: we

Such sentences are not included in the scientific text: "Everybody who is engaged in quality management knows key milestones of previous quality revolution ..." (lines 86-87)

Line 91: R.G. McGrath sees (through her article published in Harvard Business Review) - just mention the source [7]

Line 94: provided by Frost & Sullivan - it should be "published"

Line 102: et al.

Line 156: Watson says

Line 158: But customer loyalty is more than just behavior or repeated business! - no exclamation marks are included in the scientific text; please correct in entire manuscript

The word "see" should not be placed before the references, e.g., see [21-27] (line 163); please correct in entire manuscript

Line 165: [28] (Nenadál, 2001) - incorrect footnote

Line 168: nice examples

I recommend check the text very carefully in terms of editing and language.

 

Substantive:

Abstract

I think it would be good to write the abstract again taking into account the following recommendations:

A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

The abstract is missing the "background" and "methods" sections.

Keywords should include "customer loyalty measurement".

Introduction

The introduction was poorly written. A lot of information was provided in a very cursory manner e.g., the definition of Industry 4.0 or Quality 4.0 - even though the literature in this area is very extensive. The authors do not refer to the literature and cite only 2 references in the introduction. There is no justification for the topic taken, and there is no clear definition of what has already been done and what is to be the main goal of the study. The authors state that the issue of measuring customer loyalty was initiated 25 years ago, which is not true because e.g., Newman and Werbel were already doing it in the 1970s. Also in this case, they do not refer to any literature sources.

Materials and Methods

The authors present the research methods, but they do not justify why it was decided to choose them. They do not explain how the sample of 23 companies was selected and they do not present e.g., the structure of the questionnaire in the appendix. So it's hard to understand the idea behind the study.

Theory and background

Section 3.1

Line 106: The term “closed-loop quality management” has not been very frequently discussed in special journal articles until now. - it's hard to agree with that

The authors do not show any relationship between closed-loop quality management and Industry 4.0 or Quality 4.0. The conclusions drawn are very poorly supported by a literature review, and most of the references regarding closed-loop quality management come from 2014. Over the last 7 years, the possibilities of Industry 4.0 in this area have grown significantly. There is no information about this.

Section 3.2

Conclusions are also quite poorly supported by references, although better than in the previous section. However, there is still no relationship with Industry 4.0 or Quality 4.0.

Results

Section 4.1

The model presented in Figure 2 is very general and does not only apply to B2B. How was the loyalty indicators list in Table 3 established? Why exactly this and not others?

Section 4.2

The research was completed in January 2019, so why is it published now? A lot has changed over the two years (development of Industry 4.0, COVID-19 etc.). Hypotheses are not entirely correct - these are statements rather than assumptions that need to be proven. It is also unclear on what basis the authors came up with their formulation. The authors report that they received 65 responses, while the "Materials and Methods" section contains information about 23 respondents. There is also no information on how the organizations to which inquiries were sent were selected.

Line 359: "Hypothesis H1 was unfortunately confirmed without necessity of additional statistical data processing!" - this type of sentence should never appear in a scientific text. There is no basic principle of objectivity (the word "unfortunately"). It is also not acceptable to verify a hypothesis based on one question answered by 65 organizations. In order to verify such a hypothesis, it would be necessary to define the minimum size of the sample (in this case, companies participating in the survey) and to use, for example, statistical testing. How do the authors want to infer all companies in the Czech Republic based on the 65 responses?

The authors also "confirm" hypothesis 2 in a completely wrong way.

The answers given in Figure 3 and Table 4 do not provide any information. There is no relationship between the type of business and the measurement of loyalty. It is obvious that there are industries where loyalty is much more important (e.g. services). The results are based on the master thesis [62], which of course is acceptable, but a much more in-depth research is required in the scientific article.

Section 4.3

Figure 4 - the concept seems to be very basic and it is not known what it was based on? Interviews? If so, what were the questions?

The informations given in section 4.3 are very basic. There is no visible relationship between the questionnaire studies and the results. Rather, it is a description of very obvious steps. In the opinion of the reviewer, there is nothing in the "Results" section that is new or innovative in any way.

Discussion

There is no way to see the relationship between the presented results and Quality 4.0 or the EFQM Model. For example, it has not been indicated how Industry 4.0 technologies such as IoT, Big Data, Cloud Computing - can help in the discussed research problem. The indicated findings relate very poorly to the conducted research.

Conclusions

The conclusions are also poorly supported by the earlier parts of the article. The authors in no way refer to, for example, other countries or indicate specific directions for further research. Some themes, such as the human factor, are discussed quite chaotically, but there are no details. There is no comparative analysis to other studies. It is also not clear if and how the obtained results can be useful and for whom? There is no indication of how the customer loyalty measurement should be improved.

References

Despite the large number of references, many of them could be more up-to-date or better selected. I would especially add references from reputable journals.

 

Final assessment:

The article is written more in the form of a proceedings than a scientific article. The individual parts of the article are very poorly related to each other. There is no scientific approach in many places and the results presented are very sketchy. Despite the topicality of the research problem, there is no correct research methodology here, and the research carried out is of low quality. I encourage the authors to do more in-depth research. I hope that the remarks I have indicated will help to improve the text and stimulate further work.

I also found no connection between the discussed topic and sustainability. In the conducted research, sustinability was mentioned only a few times, but the results do not show any implications of the sustainability assumptions for the measurement of customer loyalty. There is no indication how the proposed assessment could contribute to the improvement of selected elements of sustainability or TBL. 

At this moment, in my opinion, the manuscript does not meet the criteria of a journal publication with IF = 2.576.

I don't know if it can be improved in the current manuscript, but I will give the authors a chance and I do not reject completely the article. However, I am afraid that meeting all the requirements can be very difficult.

Author Response

Our responses are included into enclosed file. Thanks for understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed properly a great deal of the issues raised in the previous revision. I suggest a final revision of the paper to check if complies with the formatting guidelines of the Sustainability Journal. I congratulate the authors for disseminating their research.

Author Response

We are thankful for your valuable comments and recommendations. Collaboration with you was really fruitful for all of us!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

My sincere congratulations on the final result of your investigation. I hope that you will continue to work in this field.

Great work!

Author Response

We are thankful for your valuable comments and recommendations. Collaboration with you was really fruitful for all of us!

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been addressed by the authors and most of them have been corrected. In most cases, I am satisfied with the explanations given and the changes made.

There are still some minor errors (e.g. exclamation marks, lines: 400, 454, 528, 567, 606). One can also doubt whether such a change or adjustment of the hiopotheses is scientifically correct.

However, the effort put into supplementing/correcting the text should be appreciated. In my opinion, the article sufficiently meets the criteria for being accepted for publication. Congratulations and I encourage you to do more in-depth research. 

Author Response

We are thankful for your valuable comments and recommendations. Collaboration with you was really fruitful for all of us! 

All such exclamation marks were deleted in the entire manuscript.